|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 30 days may be automatically moved.|
May I inquire about the 2001 edit? I am not sure I understand "unnecessary explanation. It is simple and reasonable to say that there is no dialogue in the ape sequence".
1) But there _IS_ dialogue in the first 20 minutes, just not modern human dialogue. It is not an issue of "do you or I understand the spoken language in those first 20 minutes?" The issue is: "do the _characters_ understand it?" Language is language, dialogue is dialogue. I do not speak "ape" but I will not deny they speak to each other. When the Russians speak in Russian on the space station I do not understand it but I do not claim there is no dialogue. The creatures in e.g. Quest for Fire speak a language; e.g. Sid Caesar in skits on his television show speaks mock languages no one who watches the show understands but it is still "language" and thus dialogue because characters in the skits understand it. Do you see my point? (To deny there is dialogue here misses a point of the movie. I know Wikipedia is to be neutral and I refrain from presenting an interpretation here which demonstrates how relevant that "dialogue" is; I merely assert that to deny there is language and thus dialogue in that part of the movie factually misrepresents the movie.)
2) One very specific reason 2001 is peculiar among movies is because of how little modern human dialogue it has. And that is exactly what the "Dialogue" section promises to discuss, yes?
"Alongside its use of music, the lack of dialogue and conventional narrative cues in 2001 has been noted by many reviewers."
They note it and so do I. I agree with the observation: the film is peculiar for that reason. (I think the film's dialogue is fascinating and frequently funny, regardless of its amount. E.g. "Good morning, sir"--but there is no such thing as morning in outer space. She and the other character drag Earth-bound worldviews with them into space.)
But the film is peculiar for a great many other reasons too; should each and every one of them--many of which are just as factual and even more astonishingly peculiar than the film's amount of dialogue--be included too? Why should this inaccurate observation in the "Dialogue" section remain? Why should the "Dialogue" section--which is partially dependent upon the inaccuracy--itself remain? What is its purpose? Is it there merely to document this one assertion, that the film has little dialogue? It is not a general discussion of language, speech or communication in the film--including the voice print ID, the signs, the machine instructions, etc.--but it focuses implicitly only upon spoken English. And it is odd if not wrong in other ways, e.g. the line "Hal is the only character in the film who openly expresses anxiety" is clearly false in the broader context of communication because "expresses anxiety" is not the equivalent of "says in English he is afraid". We clearly see the man-apes being fearful. We just don't hear them say the equivalent of "Dave, I'm afraid" in English.
Would you be willing to compromise to change the section's name from "Dialogue" to "[Modern] [English] Speech"? Or to prune those two paragraphs in other ways? Perhaps the section should only contain the "By the time shooting began" comment?
Why is there a need to maintain a fiction about the first 20 minutes? Does the film become less great because of it? The entire point of the "Dialogue" section is to discuss the dialogue in the movie, whether it has a lot or a little. One might construe your edit to be a dogmatic attempt to favor an error, as if it were necessary to pretend there was no dialogue in that part of the movie to protect the movie's greatness and uniqueness, or to protect the opinions of others. (There are other movies made in the sound era with even less dialogue. The amount of dialogue in a movie is irrelevant to its value.) Surely I have misinterpreted your purpose.
I think it may be simple but it is also unreasonable and inaccurate to write "there there is no dialogue in the ape sequence".
- I was going by the usual meaning of dialogue, which according to the article in question, is "a literary and theatrical form consisting of a written or spoken conversational exchange between two or more people." It is clear that nothing of this nature occurs in 2001 until the space station sequence. The apes grunt and shout, but I have never been able to figure this out as being intended as dialogue, and it is unclear whether Kubrick or Clarke intended this. There is some original research here, because it would require a source to argue that the sounds made by the apes are intended as dialogue. This should be reasied at Talk:2001: A Space Odyssey (film) for broader input and consensus.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:52, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
- Re this edit: the link added to the infobox is not the official address, so it is unsuitable for this location. It also has questionable relevance as an external link, as it does not appear to be affiliated to the site in any way, and should not give this impression.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 17:28, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal
Not wanting to give you more work, but do you have Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal on your watchlist? I seem to be fighting a lone battle there.... Ghmyrtle (talk) 09:05, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
- It was not on my watchlist but it has been added.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 09:29, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Amityville poster.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Amityville poster.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
- Fixed, this was removed in a vandal edit here.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 05:33, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
The information the ZQKTL wiki owner is posting about the DeepWiki owner is untrue and I would like to ask you to please prevent him from discrediting other, better established wikis on the clear web. It is in fact the other way around if you saw the websites yourselves, ZQKTL is filled with bitcoin scams and DeepWiki is full of tor resources and articles on such. DeepWiki points out obvious scam links to warn others with proof. Thank you. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 06:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
- I've tried to stay neutral in all of this. What is clear is that there is now no generally agreed link to THW and I am not going to get drawn into arguments about which of the current versions is the best.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 06:30, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
A Thank You from the Wiki
Hello, Ian (or John :) ).
It is the zqktl Hidden Wiki's admin here. I just want to thank you for your neutrality, and for the fact you have a good sense of reality, and not believing everything just by someone's words. We're working hard to continue the Hidden Wiki's legacy, and I'd like to think we're on the right way finally. Unfortunately, there are some people who doesn't like us, or who are just extremely jealous that we became the new home of the wiki, and not them. (Like the deepwiki guy, he is doing this with us since day one. Trying to discredit us everywhere, spreading the most extreme and bizarre stories, that we're controlled by hackers, or even more, like 2 days ago: we even framed Ion(!). Jesus. Anybody who knows me (or us) knows it is just plain BS from a virulent man.
I'm not asking you to choose sides of course, I never ever tried to convince you (or anybody else here) to put our link anywhere, and I'm not starting it now. (We don't need to discredit others to have our site working.) I just want to thank you for your neutral point of view, and for not believing every spiteful fairy tail on the first sight.
Thank you, in the name of the whole community.
It is all attributable public information. It is an exhaustive entry, but does not materialize from original research so much any aggregation of public information about the subject.
Scribd is often used to host essays, reports, news repots, etc. from the foreign governments to the united nations to non-governmental organisations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UduXus (talk • contribs) 06:53, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
" Wikipedia articles must not contain original research. The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. "
- the above is absolutely, per every single link, not what the edit is. It is all previously published, broadcast, attributable information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UduXus (talk • contribs) 06:56, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- I'm guessing here, but was this the same material that was deleted from Westgate Mall Attack Controversy as having "no meaningful, substantive content"? The huge amount of material added to Westgate shopping mall attack in this edit has a range of issues including WP:WEIGHT. The style is also unencylopedic and poses questions rather than answering them.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi - no it was not the same. the other was a stub. was removed because it was empty. I'm willing to fix whatever formats are necessary, or review language. Every single link is attributable public information, some from the same media/etc. cited previously. --UduXus (talk) 07:23, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
- Since this is an article related issue, it would be best to raise it at Talk:Westgate shopping mall attack for broader input and WP:CONSENSUS. It is pretty much unheard of to add this amount of material to an article without discussing it on the talk page.--♦IanMacM♦ (talk to me) 07:37, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Westgate Mall Attack Controversy
I saw your message on the creating editors talk page, so... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Westgate Mall Attack Controversy